The purpose of this code is to set min, max, and emergency shutdown thresholds for voltage coming from some A/D converter. The programmer has manually converted the voltage value to the number of A/D integer steps that corresponds to. (Similar code might be used to express time in terms of timer ticks as well.) Do you see the bug in the above code? Would you have noticed if I hadn't told you a bug was there?

Here is a way to save some trouble and get rid of that type of bug. First, figure out how many steps there are per unit that you care about, such as:
// A/D converter has 37 steps per Volt ( 37 = 1 Volt, 74 = 2 Volts, etc.)
#define UNITS_PER_VOLT 37

then, create a macro that does the conversion such as:
#define VOLTS(v) ((unsigned int) (((v)*UNITS_PER_VOLT)+.5))

Here is an example to explain how that works. If you say VOLTS(3.30) then "v" in the macro is 3.30. It gets multiplied by 37 to give 122.1. Adding 0.5 lets it round to nearest positive integer, and the "(int)" ensures that the compiler knows you want it to be an unsigned integer result instead of a floating point number.

Because the macros are expanded in-line by the preprocessor, most compilers are able to compile exactly the same code as if you had hand-computed the number (i.e., they compile to a constant integer value). So this macro shouldn't cost you anything at run time, but will remove the risk of for hand computation bugs or someone forgetting to update comments if the integer value is changed. Give it a try with your favorite compiler and see how it works.

Notes:

The rounding trick of adding 0.5 only works with non-negative numbers.Usually A/D converters output non-negative integers so this trick usually works.

This may not work on all compilers, but it works on all the ones I've tried on various microcontroller architectures. I saw one compiler do the float-to-int conversion at run-time if I left out the "(unsigned int)" in the macro, so make sure you put it in. Do a disassembly on your code to make sure it is working for you.

The "const" keyword available in some compilers can optimize things even further and possibly avoid the need for a macro if your compiler is smart enough, but I'll leave that up to you to play with if you use this trick in a real program.

As mentioned by one of the comments, you might also check for overflow with an ASSERT.

Monday, August 1, 2011

I recently worked with some embedded system teams who were struggling with the best way to use .c and .h files for their source code. As I was doing this, I remembered that back when I was learning how to program that it took me quite a while to figure all this out too! So, here are some guidelines on a reasonable way to use .c and .h files for organizing your source code. They are listed as a set of rules, but it helps to apply common sense too:

Use multiple .c files, not just one "main.c" file. Every .c file should have a set of variables and functions that are tightly related to each other, and only loosely related to the other .c files. "Main.c" should only have the main loop in it.

.H files define external storage and define function prototypes The .h files give other modules the information they need to work with a particular .c file, but don't actually define storage and don't actually define code. The keyword "extern" should generally be showing up in .h files only.

Every .c file should have a corresponding .h file. The .h file provides the external interface information to other modules for using the corresponding .c file.

Here is an example of how this works. Let's say you have files: main.c adc.c output.c process.c watchdog.c

main.c would have the main loop that polls the A/D converter, processes values, sends outputs, and pets the watchdog timer. This would look like a sequence of consecutive subroutine calls within an infinite loop. There would be a corresponding main.h that might have global definitions in it (you can also have "globals.h" although I prefer not to do that myself). Main.c would #include main.h, adc.h, output.h, process.h and watchdog.h because it needs to call functions from all the corresponding .c files.

adc.c would have the A/D converter code and functions to poll the A/D and store most recent A/D values in a data structure. The corresponding adc.h would have extern declarations and function prototypes for any other routine that uses A/D calls (for example, a call to look up a recent A/D value from polling). Adc.c would #include adc.h and perhaps nothing else.

output.c would take values and send them to outputs. The corresponding output.h would have information for calling output functions. Output.c would probably just #include output.h. (Whether main.c actually calls something in output.c depends on your particular code structure, but I'm assuming that outputs have two steps: process.c queues outputs, and the main.c call actually sends them.)

process.c would take A/D values, compute on them, and queue results for output. It might need to call functions in adc.c to get recent values, and functions in output.c to send results out. For that reason it would #include process.h, adc.h, output.h

watchdog.c would set up and service the watchdog timer. It would #include watchdog.h

One wrinkle is that some compilers can only optimize in a single .c file (e.g., only do "inline" within a single file). This is no reason to put everything in a single .c file! Instead, you can just #include all the other .c files from within main.c. (You might have to make sure you include each .h file once depending on what's in them, but often that isn't necessary.) You should avoid #including a .c file from within another .c file unless there is a compelling reason to do so such as getting your optimizer to actually work.

This is only intended to convey the basics. There are many hairs to split depending on your situation, but if you follow the above guidelines you're off to a good start.

About Me

I've done embedded systems for big industry, the US military, startup companies, and now Carnegie Mellon University. I'm the author of the book Better Embedded System Software, which goes into more detail on most of the topics discussed in my corresponding blog.As with any blog, these posts often contain speculative and partially formed thoughts, and should not be interpreted as a fully considered opinion unless stated otherwise.Key pages:Academic home page at CMUEmbedded Software Blog Checksum and CRC Blog